'Emotions on Death of Michael Jackson in Graffiti'

In Los Angeles's ethnic South Central District, two days after the death

of pop legend and cultural hero Michael Jackson, this graffito showed up

on a wall, expressing some sort of strong emotions next to a portrait of

the pop legend. Your ratings, critiques and observations are invited and

most welcome. If you rate harshly, very critically, or wish to make a

remark, please submit a helpful and constructive comment; please

share your photographic knowledge to help improve my photography.

Thanks! Enjoy! john

A warmer, more saturated version has replaced my original workup.  If you have previously viewed this version, double click it to see the larger version which already shows the changes, wait for the PN servers to update the smaller version, or see if that has happened already AND refresh your browser cache by the usual method.

john

John (Crosley)

Although few know it, 'graffito' is the singular of the word 'graffiti', a plural or general term.

john

John (Crosley)

This graffito is somewhat of a mystery to me.

Can you help me decipher it?

Place:  South Central L.A. in an area where black and Hispanic areas overlap.

Time:  Two days after death of Michael Jackson.  Graffito, new.

john

John (Crosley)

Ordinarily I don't just reproduce 'art', but this is 'street art', and it apparently commemorates (in some mysterious way I cannot fathom), the death of Michael Jackson, since it and a bevy of other Jackson-related graffiti appeared on the same two adjacent walls right after Jackson's death).

In any case, the artist's colors were too magenta for me, but that was the artist's choice, and far be it from me to 'correct' an 'artist', even a 'street artist'.

Thanks for the smile.

john

John (Crosley)

I, like you, have serious reservations about reproducing art thru photography and presenting it as original photography. (This extends to monuments for me.) However, if it tells a story or strongly evokes an emotion, I say go for it. I find that street art, as opposed to gallery art, is more likely to qualify.

GungaJim,

Not too long after, I drove by the place I'd photographed, and the walls were freshly painted, or there had been some construction work, so the murals and this graffito were demolished and forever gone.

That compares to the famous London graffiti artist who mostly keeps his identity relatively hidden, but whose work is seen in the documentary movie 'Exit Through the Gift Shop' which I recommend for an enjoyable movie about 'street art', business, and a good story.

In any case, this London-based street artist painted some graffiti on a wall, and later an investor tore down the wall for the express purpose of saving and selling the work, which was designed to be dedicated to the public and to the vagaries of the weather, political fortunes, and other factors of time, but originals of his work had gotten bid up into the high 5 or even 6 figures, so it became economical to tear down an entire building side (I recollect reading) just to save and then probably sell) this artist's work.

His name escapes me for the moment, but it will come to me when I post this, and I'll probably amend some time soon, or you an for me.  It's a pseudonym anyway.

;~))

I agree about 'monuments' for the most part, unless they're part of a cityscape, say, Napoleon's Monument in Paris, the Arche de Triomphe, or a particular spire monument that is at the center of Kyiv, and otherwise generally we seem to share the same views entirely.

Thanks for sharing your views.

john

John (Crosley)